This appeal arises from a decree and judgment dated 9.8.85 of the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta passed in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1985 dismissing the appeal from a decree and judgment dated 18.1.S5 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Barpeta ia Title Suit No 90 of 1979 dismissing the suit. 2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted Title Suit No. 90 of 1979 in the Court of the Munsiff, Barpeta claiming a sum of Rs.4,926.19 as arrears of his emoluments against the State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner Kamrup and Sub-Divisional Officer, Barpeta. The defendant-respon­dents contested the suit. 3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that required notice under section 80, CPC was not given to any of the defendants, although other issues were decided against the defendants. The lower Appellate Court has held that no notice, as required under section 80, was given to the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer. The notice to Government of the State of Assam was addressed to the Chief Secretary to that Government and, therefore, no valid notice under section 80 was given to the Government. The lower Appellate Court has not dealt with other issues by holding that the defendant-respondents have not challenged the decisions arrived at by the Trial Court. 4. Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant, has not disputed that the required notice under section 80 was not delivered to or left at the office of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer, but he has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer are not the necessary parties and as such, their names may be expunged. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that the notice addressed to the Chief Secretary and which was delivered to the Chief Secretary, was a valid notice under section 80, CPC. 5. The question which arises for consideration is whether service of notice on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam was or is in compliance with section 80, CPC. 6. Under Section 80, CPC in the case of suit against a State Govern­ment except that of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, a notice in writing has to be delivered to or left at the office of a Secretary to that Govern­ment or the Collector of the District. 6. Under Section 80, CPC in the case of suit against a State Govern­ment except that of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, a notice in writing has to be delivered to or left at the office of a Secretary to that Govern­ment or the Collector of the District. In the case of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the notice has to be delivered to or left at the office of the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised in that behalf. 7. The next question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the word “Secretary” includes the “Chief Secretary” to the Government of Assam. Rule 2 (i) of the Assam Rules of Executive Busi­ness, 1969 provides: “Secretary” means a Secretary to the Government of Assam and includes Chief Secrtary, Additional” Chief Secretary, Special Secretary, an Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and an Under Secretary. The above quoted rule shews that Secretary includes the Chief Secretary. Therefore, the notice addressed and delivered to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assa m was or is a valid notice under section 80. The Courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter. Therefore. The findings of the Courts below that no notice was served on the Government cannot be sustained. 8. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the suit is maintainable. There is no dispute that the required notice under section 80, CPC was not delivered to or let at the office of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub- Divisional Officer. A close reading of the plaint shows that plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the Deputy Commissioner and/or Sub- Divisional Officer and they have been made defendants in the nature of Performa defendant, an J that the plaintiff has asked relief against the Government only. But, under section 80, no suit shall be instituted against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in his official capacity unless the required notice under section 80 has been delivered to him or left at his office. Therefore, even if a public officer is a Perform defendant, viz no relief has been claimed against him, the required notice under section 80 is necessary. Therefore, even if a public officer is a Perform defendant, viz no relief has been claimed against him, the required notice under section 80 is necessary. However, if no such notice was given, the name of the officer can be expunged under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC, if he is impro­perly joined, that is, if he is not necessary party. That being the position, the names of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub- Divisional Officer can be struck out if they are not necessary parties or they are joined impro­perly. As already stated, no relief has been claimed against these two officers. The name of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Officer have been mentioned in the body of the plaint only for the Pur­pose of showing officers where the plaintiff was working. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner and Sub- Divisional Officer are not necessary parties and they have been impleaded as Performa defendants. Therefore, their names can be struck out. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the name of the Deputy Commissioner and Sub- Divisional Officer are struck out and suit is maintainable as against the State Government of Assam. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiff was entitled to the claim for Rs.4,926.19.Tke findings arriv­ed at by the Trial Court was not challenged before the lower Appellate Court as is seen in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. There­fore, it would serve no useful purpose to send back the case to lower Appellate Court for disposal afresh. 10. In the result, the decrees passed by the Courts below and their judgments are set aside and the suit for claim for Rs. 4,926.19. is decre­ed against the State Government of Assam. The plaintiff has not laid foundation for allowing interest and, therefore, his claim for interest cannot be allowed. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.